Because you don't like reading the truth. Even Gerry Conway, co-creator of Punisher and former Batman writer compared Batfleck to him.

He's best ignored.

It's a completey legitimate comparison. After the grief they got for the neck snapping in MOS I thought "okay he's got Batman in his film now, I guess after the grief he got for Zod's death in MOS the one thing Batman definitely won't be doing in this film is killing".

It really makes you wonder what goes through Zack Snyder's head, he doesn't help himself that's for sure.

Superman and Batman kill people, mope around all day and night...i know exactly what's going on in Zack's head. Watchmen.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

It wasn't "clear", it was surmising in a news report. Given there were only two cases of it happening, it's not like it was this long and ongoing pattern.

Yes, it was recent. But unnecessary. The killing was enough (and stupid, especially because he's probably been doing it for years if not decades).

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

Yes, it was recent. But unnecessary. The killing was enough (and stupid, especially because he's probably been doing it for years if not decades).

Probably based on...?

As has been discussed many times already, the purpose of Alfred's "that's how it starts..." scolding is Bruce has just recently started getting rougher. Referring to the brand new instance of branding.

Torture is further down the ladder of punishment than the finality of murder. If Bruce was already killing at that point, it makes no logical sense for Alfred to start getting worried and talking down on Bruce. That's like a cop slapping your wrist for carrying marijuana when you're a convicted drug trafficker.

Because Batman has clearly upped his game and strayed from his path. It's meant to provoke a response from the audience.

I don't get this line of thinking, do they want the fans and critics to hate it and don't go back to watch this movie and spend their time online or elsewhere nagging on their movie non stop? It's like a sales man showing up at your door only to insult your mother.
Secondly no one consider Snyder to be anything more than another Bay, his filmography and his statement has repeatedly shown that there is nothing thought provoking and intellectual about his film making. He made Batman kill because it's cool and that's all there is to it.

It would be fun seeing KGBeast return (heavily disfigured) to take revenge on Batman in Bat's first DCU movie. Afterall in movies everything can happen. I'm just glad they didn't went A-Team on us when Batman blew up a few cars and you see everyone crawling out.

Batman was dealing with some pretty high stakes saving Martha. It's either his only leverage he has on Superman ever again. Or if she did die, he was worried Superman would go Darkseid on us and kill off half the planet.

Batman was dealing with some pretty high stakes saving Martha. It's either his only leverage he has on Superman ever again. Or if she did die, he was worried Superman would go Darkseid on us and kill off half the planet.

Which begs the question.
Why would Superman agree to let Batman go and save his own mother when he could do it far quicker and efficiently?

Let alone, the fact that He was about to be murdered by this violent vigilante only moments ago.

This was a big WTF moment to me in a film of many.

The only reason it was written this way is so we can have the warehouse scene. Pfftt.

Yeah Batman left everybody to be killed at the hands of the Joker there. He sacrificed their lives against that of Rachel, which he probably didn't even know he COULD save from falling to death in the first place...Batman made that decision, a weird one. Nolan made a mistake not showing what happened to the Joker...

Back to BvS, both Batman and Superman made that decision to let Batman save his mother. They just did. Batman persuaded Superman a little to win his trust and Superman trusted him enough to let him do it. There's not much more to it. Sometimes people make wrong choices (like BaleBats did), but it the end it worked out and we got one of the best Batman fight scenes ever on film. No scene was left unfinished unlike the above scene from TDK.
Why is this such a big deal?

Well, there was a deleted scene where we see Joker leave the party. But I think it was deleted due to it highlighting the situation even more that Batman let him get away...

__________________“The world is a dangerous place not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”Albert EinsteinWinner of the SHH Best Writer Award
Thank You! UPDATED!!! My FanFic Page

Back to BvS, both Batman and Superman made that decision to let Batman save his mother. They just did. Batman persuaded Superman a little to win his trust and Superman trusted him enough to let him do it. There's not much more to it. Sometimes people make wrong choices (like BaleBats did), but it the end it worked out and we got one of the best Batman fight scenes ever on film. No scene was left unfinished unlike the above scene from TDK.
Why is this such a big deal?

To me its a big deal because the character motivations and relations of the two made the decision nonsensical. It was a real WTF moment. The entire movie Clark does not like this vigilante and tells him to stop.
And his dislike is justified when this violent vigilante beats him, stands on his neck and is about to slay him. Only for the infamous Martha scene to completely change things. Why would Superman trust this psycho with his mothers life? He is Superman. She is his mother. He would be able to save her far quicker and more efficiently than this Batman that was literally about to murder him. What made confronting Lex more important than rescuing his mother? But it gets worse. When the superfriends meet up again. Not a word is mentioned about Martha's safety. It is incredibly lazy and nonsensical writing. Only designed that way so we can get the admittedly awesome Warehouse scene. But the context of why that scene happened ruined it for me.

It's a movie based on comicbook characters, all real life logic fails. It's just like Black Widow or Hawkeye fighting alongside Hulk and Thor.
It makes little sense in real life, but because it's a comicbook movie it can get a pass. Don't take everything that happens in these movies that seriously, it's not like your watching a Daniella Steele movie or some real life documentary.

Batman should not kill, period. No if, and's, or buts. I agree with many here, his no kill rule makes him my hero, even if this means that he has to go out into the night again to catch the same person.

Also, I wonder how Batman will have a relationship with Gordon and the police force if Batman is killing? He's just another murderer in this case. Plus, why go study martial arts, spying techniques, lock picking, chemistry, biology for years or work your ass off to become the embodiment of peak human physique and conditioning? Grab a gun and shoot the bad guys, problem solved!

There may be more to it in the next movie, but I hate having to try to explain to myself what the hell Batman is doing. One thing I can think of that may be a signal that he is turning back to his roots after the ending of BvS is that during the Suicide Squad filming I remember NOT seeing the turret gun in front of the Batmobile.

Otherwise, as a big Batman fan, although I'm very impressed with the Batsuit, Batman's fighting skills, and Batfleck's performance overall, the whole killing thing really was a huge turnoff for me. Even my wife who has nothing to do with comics turned to me during the movie and said "I thought Batman didn't kill?" and I sunk into my seat just a bit more because we both knew she was right and I had no explanation for her.

I don't understand why people are so upset about Batman killing in this. In Batman '89 he drops bombs from his Batmobile at the thugs in the chemical plant, he shoots missiles at the thugs on the parade floats....In Batman Returns, he straps a bomb to a thug and smirks. He lights another thug on fire with the Batmobile Yet people love that portrayal of Batman and there are quite a number of people that feel Keaton is the best Batman. This feels like a double standard to me.

Not to mention Christopher Reeve Superman kills a depowered Zod while smirking. Superman uses his super strength (as Clark) to beat up a bully in a diner. People love that portrayal of Superman. Yet Cavill Superman kills (with no other options) a raging Zod about to kill a family and destroys a man's truck and people are outraged. Double standard.

I don't understand why people are so upset about Batman killing in this. In Batman '89 he drops bombs from his Batmobile at the thugs in the chemical plant, he shoots missiles at the thugs on the parade floats....In Batman Returns, he straps a bomb to a thug and smirks. He lights another thug on fire with the Batmobile Yet people love that portrayal of Batman and there are quite a number of people that feel Keaton is the best Batman. This feels like a double standard to me.

Not to mention Christopher Reeve Superman kills a depowered Zod while smirking. Superman uses his super strength (as Clark) to beat up a bully in a diner. People love that portrayal of Superman. Yet Cavill Superman kills (with no other options) a raging Zod about to kill a family and destroys a man's truck and people are outraged. Double standard.

I don't care if he killed in other movies. I wasn't a fan of that either. Snyder had an opportunity to make the most comic accurate batman and gave us punisher. Plus Bruce Wayne was just unlikable in this.

It's a movie based on comicbook characters, all real life logic fails. It's just like Black Widow or Hawkeye fighting alongside Hulk and Thor.
It makes little sense in real life, but because it's a comicbook movie it can get a pass. Don't take everything that happens in these movies that seriously, it's not like your watching a Daniella Steele movie or some real life documentary.

I hate this thing the Nolan Batman trilogy has introduced of having to over analyse everything that goes on in these films and having to place it all in a real life situation.

In saying that BvS has story point's that are just plain stupid and had people scratching their heads. Superman saying Martha instead of mom, letting Batman go after his mom seconds after threatening to drive a kryptonite spear through his skull etc. That's just poor writing.